All studies involving human participants must comply with ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent from participants. Authors should specify in the method section whether informed consent was obtained in writing or orally and provide appropriate documentation if requested by the editors. Researchers must ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Any personally identifiable information should be removed unless explicit consent is given for its disclosure. In cases where images, videos, or personal data are included, authors must confirm that participants have provided consent for their use. All research involving human participants must receive ethics committee approval before data collection begins. Authors must provide details of the ethics approval, including the name of the approving institution, approval date, and reference number, in the method section of the manuscript.
When the study prepared for publishing is produced from a book chapter, an unpublished report, and master thesis or doctorate dissertation, it should certainly be stated in Turkish and English on the first page of the study. (E.g., This article is extracted from my master thesis/doctorate dissertation entitled “…”, (Master Thesis/PhD Dissertation, ….. University, Afyon/Türkiye, 2023). This paper is the final version of an earlier announcement called “…”, not previously printed, but orally presented at a conference called “…”, the content of which has now been developed and partially changed.
In order for the articles produced from conference proceedings to be evaluated, the author should inform this in the acknowledgement part. The reason is that duplication/ republishing/ scientific deception/multicast is a crime. According to the TUBITAK Committee on Publication Ethics, republishing is publishing or sending the same research results to more than one journal for publishing. If an article has been evaluated or published previously, the publications apart from this are regarded as republishing.
All studies involving human participants must comply with ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent from participants. Authors should specify in the method section whether informed consent was obtained in writing or orally and provide appropriate documentation if requested by the editors. Within the framework of ethical rules; Studies requiring Ethics Committee Permission to be evaluated in the journal are as follows:1. All kinds of research conducted with qualitative or quantitative approaches that require data collection from participants using survey, interview, focus group study, observation, experiment, interview techniques,
2. Use of humans and animals (including material / data) for experimental or other scientific purposes,
3.Clinical researches on humans,
4. Research on animals,
5. Retrospective studies in accordance with the law on protection of personal data.
In this context, in studies to be evaluated in our journal;
1.Obtaining and indicating "Informed Consent Form" in case presentations,
2. Obtaining and indicating permission from the owners for the use of scales, questionnaires and photographs belonging to others,
3. It should be stated that the copyright regulations are complied with for the intellectual and artistic works used.
4. Editors ensure the protection of human and animal rights in the studies evaluated. Editors have the responsibility to refuse to work when there is no approval of the ethics committee on the subjects used in the study, and no permission for experimental research. In studies requiring ethics committee approval, information about the permission (name of the board, date and number) should be included in the method section and also on the first / last page of the article. In case reports, the information that the informed consent / consent form was signed should be included in the article.
Editors should:• hold the following responsibilities that are based on the guidelines "
COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors" and "
COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as Open Access by
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).• be responsible for managing the review process and have the right to decline any submission in case of any conflict of interest.
• not have any direct personal and/or financial conflicts with their assigned manuscripts.
• should not be assigned to manuscripts if they are on the author list.
Authors should:• submit original manuscripts that have not published before or not submitted to anywhere else for publication.
• indicate just the authors who contributed to the manuscript at the intellectual level.
• be ready for supply extra documents such as raw data, consent forms and permission forms.
• disclose their personal and financial relationships which might bias their study. Authors must declare 1) all sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, or other forms of conflict of interest, which may have prevented them from executing and publishing unbiased research; 2) the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting; 3) Any other relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the book/journal (for example, if editors wish to publish their own research in their own work).
• just submit their submission to one journal at a time.
• fill in the conflicts-of-interest section in the title page and explicitly state if any potential conflicts exist or not.
Reviewers should:• decline the review process if any substantial conflicts of interest exists (Due to the blind review process, we remove all details about authors and their institutions but reviewers can retract from reviewing and warn the editor-in-chief about it.)
• agree to review only their subject of expertise in an unbiased and confidential manner.
• review the manuscript constructively and kindly, avoiding insulting.
• review the content of a manuscript objectively without considering issues such as gender, religion, and politics.
• consult the editor-in-chief in case of any doubt about the manuscript.
Peer Review Policy• When the Editor-in-chief considers the manuscript appropriate for the journal policy and qualified enough for peer-review, Editor-in-chief assigns the manuscript to the relevant section editor or Editor-in-chief might assign reviewers itself.
• JTES operates a double blind review process. Appropriate and qualified studies are assigned to at least two reviewers based on their expertise, from different universities.
• Author(s) identity is removed from the manuscript and shielded from the reviewers during the review process. The reviewer is left with only the manuscript without any information that might enable him/her uncovers the identity of the author(s).
• Reviewers are given 15 days for review but this time length can be extended by Editor-in-chief and/or section editors. If reviewers do procrastinate for a long time, Editor-in-chief and/or section editors might assign new reviewers.
• Reviewers make one of the following recommendations: accept, accept with minor revisions, major revisions to review again, and reject.
• When reviewers accept a manuscript, Editor-in-chief and/or section editors have the right to accept the manuscripts based on the reviews and to reject by clarifying the reasons for protecting the quality of manuscripts and the prestige of journal.
• The manuscripts that are accepted by reviewers for publication with major or minor corrections are decided to be published if corrections are done in a given time period. If not, the manuscripts can be rejected. Therefore, authors should request extra time with an excuse for not causing a rejection.
• When the manuscripts receive one acceptance and one rejection by reviewers, Editor-in-chief and/or section editors decide to publish the manuscript based on the decision of the third reviewer.
• The manuscripts that are rejected by at least two reviewers are decided to be rejected. Editor-in-chief and/or section editors do not have the right to change this decision.
• Editor-in-chief checks the quality of reviews. If reviewers accept or reject a manuscript without reasoning it, Editor-in-chief might assign extra reviewers to finalize the review process.
• The review reports are sent to authors in all cases.
• The author(s) retains the right to appeal against the review reports of reviewers. The appeal of authors will be examined by the Editorial Board. If Editorial Board considers the author(s) right for their appeal, new reviewers are assigned for a decision.
Duties of Editors and Editorial Board• The Publisher and the Editorial Board are completely responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.
• The Editor makes an impartial decision on publication by evaluating the intellectual content of the manuscript. The evaluation of the manuscripts must be accomplished in an objective and nondiscriminatory way.
• Editorial decisions are not influenced by the origins of the manuscript including nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.
• The Editor does not accept a manuscript for publication in the event that there are sufficient grounds to suspect plagiarism.
• Editors reserve the right to reduce and to edit the text of articles.
• Editors do not allow any possible conflict of interests to arise.
• In cases of suspected publication misconduct by any participant of the editorial process, public investigation must be pursued.
Duties of ReviewersReviewers form the cornerstone of the peer-review process, and their evaluations ensure the quality of published research. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Every paper is reviewed by a minimum of two experts, who have all the opportunity to make an impartial evaluation regarding the level and clarity of the material presented.
Peer reviewers make an expert review of a manuscript in accordance with the following principles:
• to provide an objective and substantiated estimation of results presented in the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not allowed.
• to notify the Editor if he/she does not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript or cannot be impartial because of conflict of interests. He/she should ask the Editor to excuse himself/herself from the review process.
• to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Duties of Authors• to report precisely the originality and significance of their research;
• to submit only original work and use citations for any already reported material;
• to avoid self-plagiarism (attempt to republish own previously published work without significant changes),
• to ensure that the article is an exclusive material and has not been previously published or sent to other journals;
• to take full responsibility for the content, scientific context and legal aspects of their manuscripts;
• to inform the editorial board about errors in the article at any stage of material processing or after the publication of the article;
• to participate in the process of reviewing.
Author and Reviewer FeesAuthors are not charged for submission, processing and publication of papers. Peer reviewers are not paid for the peer reviewing.
Plagiarism Policy• JTES does not accept plagiarism in any of its publications, and holds the right to use plagiarism detection software (intihal.net) to check all manuscripts. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered post-publication, we will follow our guidance outlined in the Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern section of these guidelines. We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism by contacting the relevant editor
• Authors are expected to upload their originality report of their manuscripts. If authors are not able to do it, JTES has the right to check all manuscripts through a originality detection software such as iThenticate or Turnitin. Editors give a final decision by checking the similarity report. High similarity rates might cause editorial rejections. If there are minor problems, authors might be asked to decrease the similarity. Authors are responsible for the similarity percentage of their manuscripts.
• Papers presented at conferences can be submitted to the JTES. However, authors are expected to give this information in the title page, and the similarity rate should be as low as an original manuscript. The similarity rate will be analyzed again to prevent from any ethical problem.
Duplicate and Redundant PublicationJTES does not support substantial overlap between publications, unless:
• it is felt that editorially this will strengthen the academic discourse; and
• we have clear approval from the original publication; and
• we include citation of the original source.
We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of duplicate or redundant publication by contacting the relevant editor. When authors submit manuscripts to our journals, these manuscripts should not be under consideration, accepted for publication or in press within a different journal, book or similar entity.
Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern & Post-PublicationRetractions, revisions, and expressions of concern will be considered by journal editors in accordance with
COPE's Retraction Guidelines. Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon, or that contain substantial plagiarism or life-endangering content. Journals that publish Accepted Manuscripts may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during copyediting, typesetting or proofreading, but any substantive corrections will be carried out in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.
April 25, 2025
Page
197-218